So unbelievably clear that his head wasn't "bashed on the curb" and if it was, he would have at very least a band aid. If he had a broken nose, you would clearly be able to see. There may have been a scuffle, but getting beat up to the point of killing someone, not even close.

Earlier this morning I saw the CCTV of George Zimmerman being taken from the back of a police car into the police station. He's in cuffs, and has no visible injuries on the back of his head which is plainly visible. His face also lacks evidence of injury.

In the same year (2005), Zimmerman's ex-fiance, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order, alleging domestic violence. In retaliation, Zimmerman filed for a retraining order against Zuazo and both these claims were resolved with both restraining orders granted.

While is sounds to me that he wasn't convicted of any domestic violence charges, can anyone verify that part of his record? If he was convicted then a federal law applies, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) .

Under federal law, anyone, let's call him George, who has a criminal domestic violence conviction is barred from possessing a gun. Forever. As 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) says, “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence . . . to possess in or affecting commerce any firearm or ammunition.”

Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33), a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is any misdemeanor that “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.”

What does that mean? If someone has a state court conviction for simple assault, assault on a female, or any other misdemeanor assault, and if the victim is the spouse, live-in partner, child, or anyone else “similarly situated,” then "George" is forever barred by federal law from possessing a gun. The same applies to convictions for communicating threats, when "George" threatens to use a deadly weapon against one of the victims named above. "George" can never again possess a gun; if he does, he can be prosecuted in federal court and receive up to ten years in federal prison.

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Let me rephrase that so the hypothetical of me being a prosecutor doesn't confuse you so much.

Not discrediting him in anyway, but if a prosecutor is trying to disprove a self defense claim by the defendant they would probably rather go with the Medical Examiner saying that the there were no signs on Martin's body of a physical altercation prior to the shooting.

My question was actually a request for information. My understanding of the role of a funeral director was that their job was to examine a body and make it presentable for viewing at a funeral, not determine what the cause of any damage is. If they can indeed be called as expert witnesses in regards to the cause and existence of said damage then, hey, I learned something new. If they cannot be considered expert witnesses, than the validity of Richard Kurtz's statement is irrelevant as it won't help to put Martin's killer behind bars. Unless of course your only interest is to further stir the pot in what is already a convoluted mess.

I don't see this as in any way clarifying your previous comment -- nor does it support your attempt to cast doubt on Mr. Kurtz's statement. Not only is his statement relevant, the core responsiblities of his profession goes directly to the matter at hand. If called as a witness, his testimony is certainly legally valid in court.

As far as expertise, you don't get any closer to a medical examiner than with a funeral director. In many small towns, the same man served as coroner and funeral director (at least in the past this was plenty common). No one claimed Kurtz could determine cause. But his job is to find trauma, and if what Zimmerman asserted was true, Martin's knuckles would bear the damage. Nothing you've said discounts that or discredits Mr. Kurtz's status or expertise.

It's pretty clear your intent is to "further stir the pot" to maintain the pretense that what we know is somehow "already a convoluted mess." But too many facts are on record.

SombreroFallout wrote:Here's the thing: George Zimmerman's clothing was in perfect condition. Nothing was pulled out of place. He could've gone into any club and looked put together. No wrinkling, no tearing, no grass stains, no blood, no article of clothing was in any disarray at all. Instead his shirts looked ironed, studiously in place for being seen in clubs or restaurants -- and no way that'd be the case if he was in a fight rolling around on the ground.

Zimmerman's father gave an interview where he said Martin was on top of him, beating him severely for about a minute, and then, Zimmerman crawled to the grass, dragging Martin along with him.

SombreroFallout wrote:The blood on Zimmerman's face was Trayvon Martin's blood. So the EMTs wiped off his face, but they don't do laundry. You get punched in the nose, blood gets on your shirt, and there's none on that tape.

actually the lack of blood on the shirt raises another question. If you shoot someone who is in the process of beating on you, it's going to be at point blank range. Shouldn't there be blood from the gunshot on Zimmerman?

So you admit that Trayvon Martin was not beating on George Zimmerman? And further you admit that Martin wasn't shot at point-blank range, indicating that Zimmerman coud not have been acting in self-defense? Because that sure sounds like what you're saying. You can't reasonably claim to be in fear for your life if you're on offense, carrying a gun and in pursuit of someone, and not under attack or even within arm's reach.

I don't think you can assume there'd be blood on Zimmerman from the gunshot -- unless you're more of a medical examiner than Kurtz. We see the movie splatter from head shots, but a gut-shot probly at an angle? The tape wouldn't show that: esp if Zimmerman is standing over Martin, which seems to be the case -- minor splatter could end up on the shoes or dark pants.

Why is anyone discussing physical evidence? What should be discussed is Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator and exited his car. By getting out of his car, Zimmerman chose to confront Martin. The SYG law doesn't cover him then.

SombreroFallout wrote:Here's the thing: George Zimmerman's clothing was in perfect condition. Nothing was pulled out of place. He could've gone into any club and looked put together. No wrinkling, no tearing, no grass stains, no blood, no article of clothing was in any disarray at all. Instead his shirts looked ironed, studiously in place for being seen in clubs or restaurants -- and no way that'd be the case if he was in a fight rolling around on the ground.

Zimmerman's father gave an interview where he said Martin was on top of him, beating him severely for about a minute, and then, Zimmerman crawled to the grass, dragging Martin along with him.

So who are you gonna believe, George Zimmerman's father or your lyin' eyes? The tape contradicts Zimmerman's father -- and it's pretty damning evidence. No one ends up that neat and tidy after taking a beating and dragging a body around in the grass.

Not for nothing, but Zimmerman's father is a case study in how NOT to handle the press. His first comments were wholly off-base, irrelevant, and inappropriate not to mention badly-timed, selfish and callous. No PR expert would allow him to go public at that time with that statement.

Zimmerman's father also was an administrative commissioner in VA (had some sort of court function) and may've had a hand in sealing court records for 3 or 4 cases involving his son GeorgeZ, according to various internet-based sleuthing, that is.

SombreroFallout wrote:So you admit that Trayvon Martin was not beating on George Zimmerman? And further you admit that Martin wasn't shot at point-blank range, indicating that Zimmerman coud not have been acting in self-defense? Because that sure sounds like what you're saying.

I challenge you to find anywhere where I have said anything to the contrary. I'm guessing you really, really want to argue with someone over this, but my only question really had to do with Kurtz's ability to be called as an expert witness. Other than that, it appears we agree on the fact.

SombreroFallout wrote:I don't think you can assume there'd be blood on Zimmerman from the gunshot -- unless you're more of a medical examiner than Kurtz. We see the movie splatter from head shots, but a gut-shot probly at an angle? The tape wouldn't show that: esp if Zimmerman is standing over Martin, which seems to be the case -- minor splatter could end up on the shoes or dark pants.

Unless he changed prior to being taken to the police station, he was wearing light jeans. And if he was standing over Martin, again, that put's lie to the claim that Martin was beating on him.

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Really, I get that Kurtz saw no signs of Martin having punched anyone, and I've seen nothing that makes me doubt that. Then again, I hadn't seen any evidence that made me think Martin had attacked Zimmerman to begin with.

Appreciate this.

So my question remains, would Kurtz's testimony hold any value in a court of law?

Yes. That's pretty obvious. That does not hinge on Kurtz's expert ability to speak to cause of trauma, though this isn't rocket science.

No one is arguing that a medical examiner wouldn't trump an (untrained) mortician in a court of law, as far as determining cause of death based on the evidence. But Mr. Kurtz's testimony will carry weight in a court of law, and will be valid based on his status as a witness and on his professional expertise.

As you rightly asked, if there's been no autopsy conducted, why not? And if that coroner is just processing yet another body, going along to get along, he's not gonna have much interest in finding anything. Kurtz's testimony becomes all that much more important.

The coroner's thinking would be much like everyone else's in Sanford's chain-of-command up to that point: cause of death -- gunshot. You believe what you're told when the body comes in, so where's the mystery? After all, they're not looking to solve a crime here, or anything.

SombreroFallout wrote:So you admit that Trayvon Martin was not beating on George Zimmerman? And further you admit that Martin wasn't shot at point-blank range, indicating that Zimmerman coud not have been acting in self-defense? Because that sure sounds like what you're saying.

I challenge you to find anywhere where I have said anything to the contrary.

Just trying to clarify your comments. Because it sounded like you were picking away at the details we appear to have available.

Nah, just curious as to what effect that detail would have on the eventual prosecuting of Zimmerman.

What should be discussed is Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator and exited his car

From my understanding, the 911 operator's suggestion, was just that, and doesn't have any legal weight. On the other hand someone more familiar with the SYG law in Florida might have more info, but my W.A.G. would be that SYG wouldn't come into play until a confrontation began. On the other hand I would assume (and could be wrong) that if Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and escalated it, his being able to use SYG as a defense would be invalidated.

The first eyewitness account of the 17-year-old's final moments emerged on Thursday night more than a month after the boy lost his life in an altercation with a neighbourhood watch leader in a gated community in Sanford.

The anonymous man said he reported to police details of what he saw on the evening of 26 February, which included watching the gunman walking away from the fight apparently uninjured.

It contradicts an allegation from Zimmerman's father earlier in the day that the unarmed black teenager broke his son's nose during the incident and also left him with bloody injuries from slamming the man's head repeatedly on to a concrete pavement. The eyewitness says he saw no blood and that the entire confrontation took place only on grass.

That's interesting. Looks like it's turning out more and more that Zimmerman wasn't quite the victim he and others are portraying him to be.

I knew more evidence would come to light to help us better understand this tragedy. The misinformation and sensationalism... from BOTH sides, had to start unraveling at some point. The divide all that nonsense created only makes this tragedy that much worse. Everything from the fake and outdated pictures to Trayvon's parents trademarking their slain son's name in slogans... it's been disgusting.

I look forward to more information coming out and Zimmerman being charged appropriately if that's what the evidence concludes. More importantly, I hope it brings about an end to this terrible law.

And lastly, dare I say, bring about some real discussion regarding our country's infatuation with guns.